Even the AI thinks Maritime and Naval ideas are trash

[sigeena]

I'm playing a pirate-like Knights campaign and taking exclusively islands. So to maximise my survival, I had taken both Maritime and Naval ideas, along with ideas which allow naval-like policies. Naval morale as at mid 1750s is 10.2ish and miles ahead of any Great Powers. I also checked that no other AI nation takes either 1 of Naval or Maritime.

Even Portugal, Venice, Denmark and Great Britain! They seem to avoid either of these ideas altogether.

Nonetheless my campaign is super fun especially when I complement it with use of Marines. They get drilled all the time so that they move faster. They are used like special forces, drop them to grab impt straits, to distract the enemy land units, to egress when enemy is approaching and then capture a port the opposite side of the continent so that the rest of the army can get in and blitz forts while the enemy takes half a year to trundle across.

I get extra siege pips with blockades. So any coastal fort goes down within 1-2 siege rounds. Full Naval gives free bombardment breaches.

No allies because no need for them when my navy is qualitatively superior to all the GPs combined.

I've been going to wars with an oversized France and just take ducats and war reps, trying to force them to bankruptcy. They are incredibly resilient.

Not so Ottomans and Great Britain. They bankrupt quite quickly.

 

[brifbates]

It's not the ideas that are trash, it's the usefulness of navies in general. There are some niche cases where naval power per ship actually matters but the vast majority of the time having a powerful navy is well down the priority list (in single player ofc).

 

[necro84]

The biggest problem in SP is that you don't need navy even to invade places like Britain. I just use threaten war to get one province there and when I want to fight England/GB I transport troops before I declare on them. In Asia/Africa you can do similar thing but instead of threaten war just charter company to buy one province on an island

 

[minven]

I'm playing a pirate-like Knights campaign and taking exclusively islands. So to maximise my survival, I had taken both Maritime and Naval ideas, along with ideas which allow naval-like policies. Naval morale as at mid 1750s is 10.2ish and miles ahead of any Great Powers. I also checked that no other AI nation takes either 1 of Naval or Maritime.

Even Portugal, Venice, Denmark and Great Britain! They seem to avoid either of these ideas altogether.

Nonetheless my campaign is super fun especially when I complement it with use of Marines. They get drilled all the time so that they move faster. They are used like special forces, drop them to grab impt straits, to distract the enemy land units, to egress when enemy is approaching and then capture a port the opposite side of the continent so that the rest of the army can get in and blitz forts while the enemy takes half a year to trundle across.

I get extra siege pips with blockades. So any coastal fort goes down within 1-2 siege rounds. Full Naval gives free bombardment breaches.

No allies because no need for them when my navy is qualitatively superior to all the GPs combined.

I've been going to wars with an oversized France and just take ducats and war reps, trying to force them to bankruptcy. They are incredibly resilient.

Not so Ottomans and Great Britain. They bankrupt quite quickly.

Idea picks aren't based on AI "logic". I remember reading on forums that especially Big nations have their own RNG's for the 1st-2nd-3rd... idea picks. For example Iberians have 100% (?) chance to pick Exploration in first 2 ideas however it is 10% for France.

I would guess most GP's aren't coded to pick naval/maritime early at all, if ever, so it is a design choice by the Devs.

 

[sigeena]

Idea picks aren't based on AI "logic". I remember reading on forums that especially Big nations have their own RNG's for the 1st-2nd-3rd... idea picks. For example Iberians have 100% (?) chance to pick Exploration in first 2 ideas however it is 10% for France.

I would guess most GP's aren't coded to pick naval/maritime early at all, if ever, so it is a design choice by the Devs.

It's mid 1700s and every nation has filled out at least 7-8 ideas. None has taken either of Maritime or Naval. You would have thought maybe Portugal or Great Britain or Norway may take it as 5th or even 6th idea.

 

[necro84]

Looking at factors AI other than pirate republic is most likely to take naval and maritime when it has at least 10 ports and no more than 50 cities. Coastal European nations often will select exploration so I think except pirates Kilwa, Malay or some nation in India/Indochina has the highest chance to take one of these

 

[Xdevo]

Some time ago, there was a giant set of polls of which idea groups the forum users thought were "the best". Supposedly, the results of this were used to create modifiers for each of the idea groups (which are replaced with different ones for specific circumstances like tags, govt types, or number of provinces). At the time, Naval and Maritime were waaaaaaaay worse than they are now (this recent change was the ~4th attempt to make them better iirc), so they have really low modifiers because of this. The unmodified number for Naval is 0.31, while Maritime's is 0.41. For reference, Trade has 0.7, and Quantity's is 1.0.
I'm not confident on way the modifiers interact with each other and the nesting makes the file kinda hard to read, but maritime and naval both also have modifiers for number of ports, which means that the tiny nations that tend to get ideas ahead of time (because what else would they spend points on) will never take them.

For maritime specifically, it also has to compete for slots with Exploration which has a lot of the same weights (which means the AI probably won't take it in the first 3 idea groups) which depending on how long you play for, ends up being a lot of the game.

 

[Kurfürstin Adelheid]

I agree with what others have said. It not the ideas themselves which are bad, it is the lack of impact navies and naval battles have as a whole. The idea groups themselves do exactly what they say they will do, improve your merchant/war fleet, but because the navy just doesn't do much, it is like multiplying zero by four. You still get zero. I took them both once for the role playing aspect when I was playing as Corfu. I think there are a few niche situations where they could potentially be useful beyond roleplaying, but unless naval related things received an overhaul to make them more impactful the ideas will continue to only be useful in specific, uncommon conditions.

 

[cursorhiker]

I agree with what others have said. It not the ideas themselves which are bad, it is the lack of impact navies and naval battles have as a whole. The idea groups themselves do exactly what they say they will do, improve your merchant/war fleet, but because the navy just doesn't do much, it is like multiplying zero by four. You still get zero. I took them both once for the role playing aspect when I was playing as Corfu. I think there are a few niche situations where they could potentially be useful beyond roleplaying, but unless naval related things received an overhaul to make them more impactful the ideas will continue to only be useful in specific, uncommon conditions.

The problem isn't so much with navies directly as it is with supply being too easy to come by, expeditionary forces too easy to send, trade being more influenced by control of the land rather than the sea, the horrendous military access system, and every war being a total war.

 

[Blizzrd33]

I took them both a long while back when I played Gotland pirates (before it became an actual thing with Lions of the North). I might do it again whenever I get around to the Mann achievement too. Just highly situational, as most commenters in the thread have said.

 

[Snake_Squeezins]

Even if the AI picked the ideas, I do not have confidence that they would know how to best leverage their naval advantage into providing a meaningful challenge to a player or even other AI. You’re describing quite a bit of sophisticated micro to make use of the ideas.

 

[Johan]

It's not the ideas that are trash, it's the usefulness of navies in general. There are some niche cases where naval power per ship actually matters but the vast majority of the time having a powerful navy is well down the priority list (in single player ofc).

This is sadly the case.

 

[iClipse]

This is sadly the case.

And if it were to change I'd hope Naval combat gets changed in general. In land combat there are a ton of things you can do, like putting forts in strategic places, engaging only defensively, optimal army construction.

In naval combat it's just: stack as many Heavy Ships as possible. If your opponent has more. Stay in port. If you have more: he stays in port.

 

[Crazymalian]

Maybe buff the way blockades work on the nations trade income? A blockade of a nations entire ports should put them in a terminal economical situation, but this is just not the case in game. It reduces your prosperity sure, but maybe it should have a much greater effect on trade power? The big issue right now is that navies usually are just docked if the war seems unwinnable, with not too many consequences, exept if you want to do a naval invasion.

 

[sigeena]

So @necro84 said something about checking pirates, Kilwa and Malayan nations, I did and only pirates took maritime ideas. There are 2 of them in my timeline and they took maritime as their 5th idea. Take it for what it's worth, as Knights, I took Maritime and Naval as my 1st and 2nd ideas.

I hope nobody goes away with the idea that I think Maritime and Naval are trash. I was just musing that if any nation goes big on these 2 idea groups, they can very easily dominate the other nations in naval warfare. It is hardly inconsequential. It's just not a blitzkreig kind of war. Blockades take time. And every war is going to last in excess of 5 years before WE generated from blockades start to wear the enemy out.

Reading about galley battles in Mediterranean, there was reference to seasonal tides and winds as well, and that campaigning was limited by these periods, or risk stormy weather. This is something that may result in alot more micro, but it makes sense that we can't keep a galley fleet at the enemy's front door to blockade at all times. Perhaps reduce supply range and let supply range increase with tech.

The primary means of projecting global strategic power is navy during period of EU4, it really needs to be more meaningful.

 

[brifbates]

I hope nobody goes away with the idea that I think Maritime and Naval are trash. I was just musing that if any nation goes big on these 2 idea groups, they can very easily dominate the other nations in naval warfare. It is hardly inconsequential. It's just not a blitzkreig kind of war. Blockades take time. And every war is going to last in excess of 5 years before WE generated from blockades start to wear the enemy out.

A couple of issues though...


1) The idea groups only tilt things in your favor if the playing field was practically level to start with, this is rarely the case. In most cases you would already win or have no chance due to the raw numbers.

2) Using the points elsewhere could easily have you winning the war with your armies well before the 5 years pass to where your blockades actually have any impact.

 

[Kurfürstin Adelheid]

A blockade of a nations entire ports should put them in a terminal economical situation, but this is just not the case in game.

Yes, the only time a blockade has ever had a slightly significant impact on my income is when I am playing a costal free city. If you own more than one or two good ports, it doesn't do that much. The AI also rarely spreads its navy out enough to blockade all your ports.

 

[Crazymalian]

Yes, the only time a blockade has ever had a slightly significant impact on my income is when I am playing a costal free city. If you own more than one or two good ports, it doesn't do that much. The AI also rarely spreads its navy out enough to blockade all your ports.

Yep. Just look at the historical example of Cuba being Blockaded by the US for example, it hat large ramifications on their economy and ability to build up an industrial base. Or how the UK cut off trade for Napoleons colonies, forcing them to make the continental system. Not having a proper navy should be far more punishing.

 

[iClipse]

Maybe buff the way blockades work on the nations trade income? A blockade of a nations entire ports should put them in a terminal economical situation, but this is just not the case in game. It reduces your prosperity sure, but maybe it should have a much greater effect on trade power? The big issue right now is that navies usually are just docked if the war seems unwinnable, with not too many consequences, exept if you want to do a naval invasion.

They do this already. Which in theory should be a heavy penalty.

 

[TK3600]

And if it were to change I'd hope Naval combat gets changed in general. In land combat there are a ton of things you can do, like putting forts in strategic places, engaging only defensively, optimal army construction.

In naval combat it's just: stack as many Heavy Ships as possible. If your opponent has more. Stay in port. If you have more: he stays in port.

Victorian fleet in being doctrine and dreadnought race coming early.